Squatter's Rights
AOL News is reporting that Daryl Hannah and others were arrested trying to stop a landowner from developing his Los Angeles property. Squatters have been using Ralph Horowitz's 14 acres to grow crops while he "was paying $25,000 to $30,000 a month in mortgage and other land costs." None of the protestors, including Hannah, Willie Nelson, or Danny Glover, were willing to demonstrate their preference that this land remain undeveloped. Oh, they demonstrated, but they never opened their wallets to show their true preference rank.
AP quotes Hannah as stating, "I'm very confident this is the morally right thing to do, to take a principled stand in solidarity with the farmers." Just try this on her property and see if she still considers squatting a moral right.
Read Police Arrest Tree-Sitting Daryl Hannah for the whole story.
Comments (69)
We blogged the irony of this 'event';
http://www.libertyguys.org/articles/detail.asp?ArtID=1367
The entire thing is a microcosm of the sad, sorry story of government interference in property rights.
Published: June 15, 2006 9:14 AM
How about they bulldoze those scum off the property? They ought to be sued for the cost to the owner.
Published: June 15, 2006 10:55 AM
If they were so convinced that the land needed to remain "undeveloped", why wouldn't they, at least, run a lottery, and use the typical 50% chop to raise funds to buy it ?
Published: June 15, 2006 11:08 AM
You folks have exactly 180 degrees wrong.
Under the radical Lockean/Rothbardian theory of property rights, such rights arise independently of the state and state assignations of title are frequently fraudulent.
As the state is little more than a bandit gang -- "the mafia, but with flags" as I've called it before. As such, it can not legitimately own or transfer property to its favored sycophants, such as the developer.
That land was morally owned by the people who had "homesteaded" it for use as a community garden. By criticizing people who are trying to hang on to what's rightfully theirs, you aren't defending property rights, but attacking them. I am appaled and disgusted.
Published: June 15, 2006 12:37 PM
Brad said;
"That land was morally owned by the people who had "homesteaded" it for use as a community garden. By criticizing people who are trying to hang on to what's rightfully theirs, you aren't defending property rights, but attacking them. I am appaled and disgusted."
Really? What about the property rights of the original owner? Why is it that it is ok, in your analysis, for a group of citizens to accept a fraudulent assignation of title, but not a previous legal title-holder? You seem to be implying that two wrongs on the part of the city make a right, but three don't.
Published: June 15, 2006 12:51 PM
The best summaries on its title history that I've seen are found here, here and here.
That land became morally "unowned" and "abandoned" the instant the official title passed to the city. The first non-state users/occupiers to "mix their labor" with the land (as Locke would have put it) become the owners, morally.
Mixing their labor with the land is precisely what the urban farmers have been doing on that plot of ground for the past thirteen years.
The proviso in the original eminent domain seizure decision, that the land may be bought back from the city by the original owner, is morally null and void in that the city could not morally set any terms for any kind of deal, not being a legit owner of anything anyway.
That eviction was theft.
Published: June 15, 2006 1:36 PM
I read the radgeek article. If you read it closely, though the author qualifies it, you essentially have three wrongs;
1) The original taking
2) The "gift" to the squatters
3) The "deal" with Horowitz
The only thing Horowitz is guilty of here is driving a hard bargain with the city. The city screwed themselves by agreeing to the buyback provision in the first place. The squatters are still screwed, legally, whether you recognize any rights Horowitz has or not, since the city could have evicted the squatters even absent the wormy deal with Horowitz and sold it to another developer.
In a free-market, anarchistic society, Horowitz could buy a piece of property, secure in the knowledge that as long as he responsibly maintained and defended it, he would retain ownership of it to do what he wished.
If HE abandoned it, the squatters would have just as valid a claim as anyone to the property. The intervening evil in this case is government.
Government took the property from Horowitz (and other owners), left it abandoned for years, "gave" it to the 'community', then "took" it back and "gave" it to Horowitz.
Believing that the squatters have a clear right to the property requires looking VERY selectively at the ownership history of the property. At best, they had a claim that could be adjudicated, NOT a clear title.
In fact, if you view all government action in this case as illegal, the argument can be made that the squatters never had any claim to the property, since it rests in part on prior actions by the city which interfered with the rights of prior owners.
Published: June 15, 2006 2:06 PM
"The intervening evil in this case is government."
On that particular point, we can agree.
I guess I should ask: Do you agree with Rothbard that state "owned" property is in actuality "unowned"?
To the degree that is true, then the state could BOTH owe the original owner restitution (of some sort) AND (by its interference) interrupt the chain of title in a moral sense, such that new homesteading is valid.
Published: June 15, 2006 2:45 PM
Unfortunately, Vince Daliasso seems to have quite a point. A sad story for sure though, because I’m ready to believe some people invested a lot of time in the gardens on behalf of well meant misinterpretation, or deliberate disinformation from government’s “official statements�.
Still the only critical libertarian attitude to be inspired by Brad Spangler’s information, might be to question what the 5 million deal with Horowitz was all about (why doesn’t anybody else show up from the old owners anyway, did Horrowitz “kill them all� maybe?) .
The fact that the details seem not available to the public shows at best that Government corruption is a plague which might only disappear with the institution itself. Still, wouldn't you say Mr. Spangler, in a libertarian society, Horowitz himself may be considered, if not as “innocent�, at least as “not guilty�, as long as it is not proven he robbed (or killed) someone else…
Published: June 15, 2006 2:46 PM
@Artisan:
Refer to my comment immediately above your own, re: and/both.
Published: June 15, 2006 2:48 PM
Brad sez;
"I guess I should ask: Do you agree with Rothbard that state "owned" property is in actuality "unowned"?"
Morally, yes. Legally, no.
Worse, they also claim right of disposal over ALL property, not just what they explicitly "own". This is their legal basis for taxation and eminent domain, both of which we rightly define as theft, but which they arrogate to themselves, all the better to enforce the reality that they own ALL property within their jurisdiction to dispose as benefits them and their friends, promises to pay "compensation" notwithstanding.
Published: June 15, 2006 4:08 PM
"Morally, yes. Legally, no."
Pardon my lack of precision in phrasing the question. I took it as a given that my numerous prior references to morality would set the context. That, and not many prior references to Rothbard in jurisprudence (yet).
So, okay then...
On what basis do you assert that (in moral terms) what the urban farmers have been doing for the past thirteen years (mixing their labor with "unowned" land) does NOT constitute a morally valid homestead action?
Published: June 15, 2006 4:25 PM
Ahem. As bad as Horowitz is (and his actions in collusion with the city are bad, no question), the city did not 'homestead' the land, it stole it from Horowitz (and others)- in other words, it used force to render the land "vacant".
The city is therefore culpable in violating whatever homestead rights Horowitz had, in addition to conspiring with him later to violate whatever homestead rights the squatters had. I stipulated that both Horowitz and the squatters had moral claims on the property.
But you can't, on a moral basis anyway dismiss Horowitz's claim to the property because it compromises the squatters. They all have a moral case against the city's actions. But we are talking about the LEGAL case here too, and legally speaking the city is acting like an owner, as well as an agent, with obvious conflicts of course because it stands to benefit.
Published: June 15, 2006 4:42 PM
"...the city did not 'homestead' the land"
That would be extraordinarily out of character for me to assert. As it happens, I did no such thing.
I asked if you agreed with Rothbard that state "owned" property is (in moral terms) actually "unowned".
You agreed.
We both know what constitutes a valid homestead action on unowned land.
We both know that is exactly what the urban farmers then did.
"But you can't, on a moral basis anyway dismiss Horowitz's claim to the property..."
That taking happened. He would be due restitution, some of which he has received and perhaps more of which he still ought to get.
His claim for restitution against the state, though, is irrelevant to the matter of who the rightful owners of the property are now -- the farmers. They homesteaded it while it was unowned. They are not the state. The land belongs to the farmers and the state may owe Horowitz money for restitution for it's original taking.
"...because it compromises the squatters."
You surely can when the so-called "squatters" are actually "owners", in moral terms. We have established that they are the owners, in moral terms.
"But we are talking about the LEGAL case here too."
Actually, no, I'm not. I made an assertion about morality and, by extension, justice -- which we both ought to know the state's courts have nothing whatsoever to do with. That is all that I have been debating.
I don't concern myself with "legality" unless it has immediate tactical or strategic consequences for myself personally -- and I'm not in L.A.
Published: June 15, 2006 5:07 PM
Keep in mind there has to be no intent to use for property for it to be considered abandoned. Otherwise, no one would ever purchase property sitting over top of oil fields as a long-term investment. Once the land sat for some arbitrary period, someone could claim abandonment and make a valid claim for the property.
I will assume that Horowitz always intended to use the land for a certain purpose. The land is rightfully his.
Published: June 15, 2006 6:03 PM
"I will assume that Horowitz always intended to use the land for a certain purpose."
When it was partially his originally, we can assume that he never wanted to lose it in the first place.
Once that taking happened, though, he would morally be due restitution, preferably in the form of restoration of the land to his ownership.
But while that land was in the possession of the state, it became unowned and thus able to be homesteaded by non-state third parties, such as the farmers. They homesteaded it while it was unowned, making it their property, morally.
The possibility of Horowitz potentially having restitution due him from the state is, in moral terms, no license for Horowitz to steal from a third party.
As it happens, though, Horowitz paid money to the state to buy the land back -- thereby tacitly acknowledging the state's fraudulent property right in the property and calling into question even his ability to (morally) demand restitution from the state, let alone steal from innocent third parties such as the farmers.
The land belongs to the farmers. They homesteaded it while it was unowned. Horowitz is, in moral terms, a thief -- plain and simple.
Contra the cult of Rand, "property rights" is not a code word for the virtue of top-down class warfare.
Published: June 15, 2006 6:28 PM
I agree with Brad, but I want to clarify a couple of apparent misconceptions:
As I understand the facts of the case, Horowitz was only one of a group of investors that owned 80% of the land before the city took it and paid the owners nearly $5 million. How does that give Horowitz a claim to all of the property now? What happened to the other owners?
It is also my understanding that the farmers did not actually "squat" on the land, but were given permission to occupy it by the L.A. Regional Food Bank, a private company that was issued a permit to use the land by the L.A. Harbor Department, who paid over $13 million for the land in 1994. It is not clear when the city revoked the permit held by the Food Bank, but I think it is incorrect to refer to the farmers as "squatters" simply because they never paid anything for the land they were using.
Published: June 15, 2006 8:39 PM
So, if a thief carjacks me at gunpoint and forces me out of the car, only to subsequently offer me the car for $100 cash, is my $100 payoff proof that the thief was at some point the rightful owner of my car?
And, can I claim any unused government land as mine? Even if the land was given to the government by the landowner?
Published: June 15, 2006 9:05 PM
"So, if a thief carjacks me at gunpoint and forces me out of the car, only to subsequently offer me the car for $100 cash, is my $100 payoff proof that the thief was at some point the rightful owner of my car?"
The question does not apply because I'm not asserting that the government was EVER the *rightful* owner.
"And, can I claim any unused government land as mine?"
As far as I'm concerned? Wouldn't bother me. As a matter of fact, I've written on the topic before.
"Even if the land was given to the government by the landowner?"
Government steals so much from so many and harms so many, thereby creating so many potential restitution claims, that no government can really ever "own" anything, morally.
In ethical terms, such assets are forfeit to the first people capable of being legitimate owners who take them away from the state or otherwise homestead them.
Published: June 15, 2006 9:47 PM
"As it happens, though, Horowitz paid money to the state to buy the land back -- thereby tacitly acknowledging the state's fraudulent property right in the property and calling into question even his ability to (morally) demand restitution from the state, let alone steal from innocent third parties such as the farmers."
Then you have to justify this earlier statement. You clearly state that the payment showed that Horowitz acknowledged the state's ownership of the land thus relinquishing moral title to the land. The same then would apply to the carjacker and my car.
Published: June 15, 2006 9:55 PM
"You clearly state that the payment showed that Horowitz acknowledged the state's ownership of the land thus relinquishing moral title to the land."
No. If you read carefully, you will notice that part was essentially just an aside that "called into question" (in my opinion) his ability to pursue further restitution from the state.
However...
Even if such restitution for the taking was NOT called into question, that would have nothing to do with the land, morally speaking, being unowned (at least, from a Rothbardian perspective) and during that time homesteaded by new owners.
The only restitution that he could seek from the state would thus be monetary or perhaps some other parcel of government land that hadn't been homesteaded yet.
The state owing him restitution in no way entitles him to steal from third parties.
Published: June 15, 2006 10:10 PM
Man-A owns a plot of land. Man-B takes Man-A's property against his will. Man-C occupies the land, knowing full well Man-B immorally took it from Man-A.
Questions: Is the land actually unowned when Man-B takes it, or is it stolen and still properly Man-A's? Does it matter if Man-B gives Man-A some money for the land (if Man-A didn't consent to the transaction)?
If Man-B lets Man-A have his land back, does Man-C have any viable claim to this land? If Man-C has some partial claim to the land, does he deserve restitution from Man-A or Man-B?
Published: June 15, 2006 10:47 PM
Brad, I think you are too quick to dismiss Horowitz's 'homestead' rights. The farmers homestead occurred after the city forced Horowitz (and others) from the land. You shouldn't minimize what happened simply because you sympathize with the farmers. If the city hadn't forced Horowitz off the property, he might well have built that warehouse many years before the riots and the subsequent "gift" of the land to the farmers, and the farmers would have had no land to homestead.
You seem like you are performing a value judgement here, rather than defending a principle.
Published: June 16, 2006 8:28 AM
I think Vince is quite right.
Morally, the plot has been Horowitz's all along, even though the city appropriated it. The farmers should have known full well they were being allowed to use the land by people who were not its proper owners — but if they were deceived, it is up to the city managers and not Horowitz to provide compensation.
I think it's the Rothbardian point of view that state-controlled property is not necessarily owner-less; if the owner from whom it was stolen can be identified, that person is still the rightful owner.
Published: June 16, 2006 8:36 AM
No. Treating state "owned" property as being actually "unowned" morally *is* the orthodox Rothbardian position as I understand it.
Any value judgement occuring is in the deviation from that plumb line -- and hence, not mine to explain.
Published: June 16, 2006 8:44 AM
The car-jacker analogy needs to be updated: Say A, B and C jointly own a car, X steals it and allows D to use it. D improves the car. At some point, A buys the car from X and goes to repossess the car from D.
If A, B and C's original title is legitimate, then A, B and C should get the car back, not just A. The only way A's purchase of the car from X would be valid is if you accept X's title as valid. If not, A, B and C should get the car back.
In either case, it seems reasonable that D should be allowed to remove his fuzzy dice first. If at some point D had replaced the engine, I don't know that D should be allowed to remove the engine, leaving a non-functioning hulk.
So in the land case, either you accept the government's title as legitimate, in which case Horowitz bought and owns the land himself; or you do not accept the government's title, meaning Horowitz and the other original owners should get the land back.
Either way, the squatters could take their fences and the current crop of vegetables with them when they leave. They probably can't dig up and cart off the topsoil.
radgeek goes astray when he says "And whatever share of the land did rightfully belong to [Horowitz] no longer does. Horowitz may very well have a legitimate claim against the city government for stealing land which belonged partly to him. Eminent domain is theft, and Horowitz was one of the victims. But the city government cannot pay off that debt by selling back the land out from under the people who have been occupying and cultivating the land for more than a decade."
It's not paying a monetary debt by selling the land, it's returning the land property to the rightful owners. The common law of adverse possession sets an arbitrary time span of 20 years before title passes to the squatters. Is there some justification for a new arbitrary time span here?
Brad Spangler, by automatically treating state-owned property as unowned, aren't you giving the government the power to negate any existing title merely by claiming it? Say instead that the state's title is invalid, don't say that it erases any previous valid titles.
Published: June 16, 2006 9:21 AM
Brad,
I think Rothbard's position is that state ownership of unimproved land is an absolute moral nullity, and I agree. I think he would have conditioned this in the case of 'improved' land stolen by eminent domain or other means, though I do not speak for him and am poorly read on this.I think the operating concept of first user applies here.
In fact, if you follow my logic on this, the farmers claim was only possible as a result of the theft of the land by the city. I contend that both Horowitz and the farmers have a claim against the city.
Published: June 16, 2006 9:43 AM
"...don't say that it erases any previous valid titles."
If you read my comments regarding restitution above, you would hopefully recognize that as not *quite* what I'm saying. I acknowledge the original taking as theft and specifically say that Horowitz may be due further restitution from the state, morally.
"...by automatically treating state-owned property as unowned, aren't you giving the government the power to negate any existing title merely by claiming it?"
I'm not giving them anything. I'm describing what occurs in the real world -- the state asserts a fraudulent title and backs it up with force.
In ethical terms, such assets are forfeit to the first people capable of being legitimate owners who take them away from the state or otherwise homestead them.
Published: June 16, 2006 10:06 AM
And I should have added to the comment @ 10:06 AM, for purposes of clarity, that the first people capable of being legitimate owners to homestead that land after the state seizure were the urban farmers.
Now, by contrast, people in deep collusion with the state would not be capable of being legitimate owners. As an example of that, look at what has gone on under Mugabe with the seizures of farms on behalf of factions affiliated with that state and only nominally non-state in nature.
Published: June 16, 2006 10:14 AM
We are going in circles here.
If not for the illegitimate force of government, Horowitz, et al would not have had their homestead terminated. Anything that occurs as a result of the illegitimate action should be null and void. The property should revert to the original homesteader.
If you are saying that the latecoming homesteaders are as good an owner as the previous homesteader, you are overlooking the evil intervention of government - worse, you are treating the forcing off of the land by government as equivalent to an abandonment or an original state of un-ownership - clearly we know this is not the case.
The city, violating the homestead of Horowitz, et al stole the property by force (by definition, eminent domain seizures are not free-market sales and are rightly viewed as a taking, not a sale under duress). The city-as-bandit then kept all other homesteaders off the land by use and threat of force.
They then granted use of the land without conveying legal title, in direct violation not only of morality but its own laws and contracts which obliged the city to sell it back to Horowitz if it didn't use it.
The city then realized three things; a) it would be sued for breach of contract, costing it millions, b) it was preventing development that would provide it with more tax dollars, and c) continuing to allow the farmers to occupy the land was going to cost it big time in time, money, and legitimacy. So they cut a deal with Horowitz.
NONE of this, if you really believe in Lockean homesteading, abrogates Horowitz's title. It creates a restitution obligation within the city to give restitution to both the farmers and Horowitz. The city does not have the money for either, so it stiffed both the farmers and Horowitz. It isn't Horowitz's fault that he drove the best (crooked) bargain he could with the city.
Though if Horowitz believed in private property, he would compensate the farmers himself. Instead, he enlisted the criminal city government as goons to force them off his property without compensation. That's wrong, but it has no bearing on his legitimate, moral title to the property, since absent state force, he might well have 'mixed his labor' with the property.
Published: June 16, 2006 10:30 AM
"We are going in circles here."
Ahem. Yes, we are. [sigh]
I'll end by just saying to refer to my last two previous comments and pointing out that, chronologically, Horowitz's re-acquisition of the official title came *after* the homesteading by the farmers.
Published: June 16, 2006 10:46 AM
I think the argument that the land should be given back to the original owners is a good one, but Horowitz was not the original owner of all the land in question. I find it very curious that he begins this with some unknown share in 80% of the land and he ends with 100% ownership.
I still fail to see where he has "legitmate, moral title" to the entire tract of land simply because he was once a partial owner.
So we still have a situation where the criminal city government has stolen from the original owners other than Horowitz and given their shares to Horowitz. And they made things even worse by temporarily giving permission to the farmers to turn an unproductive piece of land into something that was at least providing food and beauty in an otherwise blighted area.
Published: June 16, 2006 11:14 AM
On whether a state seizure of vacant land abrogates the ownership rights of the original owner and it becomes vacant, I think Rothbard and Hoppe differed (or at least had a difference of emphasis). Hoppe stressed that only state land whose original owners couldn't be found should be considered unowned.
But the interesting question to me is how developed the land was when Horwitz and his fellow investors originally owned it. If it was a vacant lot until the squatters farmed it, it certainly raises the question of just how much labor it takes to appropriate vacant land in the first place. An urban lot that has never been developed may not have been altered beyond the extension of adjoining sidewalks and utility conduits next to it.
Published: June 16, 2006 12:35 PM
Brad;
"'ll end by just saying to refer to my last two previous comments and pointing out that, chronologically, Horowitz's re-acquisition of the official title came *after* the homesteading by the farmers."
You are conveniently ignoring Horowitz's "homestead" here.
David;
"So we still have a situation where the criminal city government has stolen from the original owners other than Horowitz and given their shares to Horowitz."
Partially.
We are still stuck with a situation where Horowitz (and others) have had their property stolen by the city. Nothing the city did subsequent to that is legitimate, including 'giving' it to the farmers and subsequently evicting them and selling the property back to Horowitz.
But we are left with the original theft to deal with. Just because you deny the legitimacy of the city government, you cannot deny that the city forced Horowitz (and others) off the land and kept them off it.
There is no restitution for Horowitz, et al short of restoring the land to its original owner. There is no restitution owed by Horowitz to the farmers. The city is the villain here. You must not give in to destroying property rights in general because you like the farmers, but you don't like Horowitz (nor do I).
Published: June 16, 2006 12:39 PM
Vince,
I generally agree with your conclusion, but:
"You are conveniently ignoring Horowitz's "homestead" here." is wrong. Horowitz's homestead is irrelevant, as he is not receiving it back from the thief - he is buying title to the whole tract (parts of which he never homesteaded, and even the part he did, he only did as a tenant in common with his partners) from a thief - the city.
If he were to be receiving only that share of ownership that he lost, THEN, we could say he is receiving restitution for the theft. However, he is receiving much more than that. So, you should also be careful not to destroy actual property rights.
The truth is that those partners and other owners should have THEIR rights restored entirely, in conjunction with Horowitz. Horowitz is in fact receiving stolen property to the extent that he is receiving title, or shares of title, that he did not previously own.
Published: June 16, 2006 12:55 PM
Vince: If not for the illegitimate force of government, Horowitz, et al would not have had their homestead terminated. Anything that occurs as a result of the illegitimate action should be null and void. The property should revert to the original homesteader.
Anything at all? No matter how long the property has remained abandoned and no matter what Horowitz himself did with respect to it?
Horowitz abandoned his claim to his share of the plot for 15 years before he took the city to court -- not claiming that the land had belonged to him all along (which would have justified only a share of the land being returned to him without compensation to the city government, NOT the piratical "sale" of the entire property in return for a pay-off), but rather that the city was the owner of the land for the last 15 years but was under a contractual obligation to sell it to him.
Whatever imaginary quasi-Rothbardian defense you might be able to put in Horowitz's mouth for his claim over a parcel of the land, he IS NOT making that claim in fact. His public actions constitute a quitclaim of his claim on his share of the land to the city government from 1985-2003, and thus an abandonment of a direct claim to the property. The urban farmers were thus justified in treating the land as abandoned property, available for homsteading and transforming by personal occupancy and labor. If Horowitz changes his mind NOW, and starts demanding compensation for an illegitimate seizure in 1985 (rather than asserting the non-existent rights that derive from a piratical "sale") then he has a right to demand restitution from government officials but no right to take even his share of the land, let alone the WHOLE LOT, out from under farmers who homesteaded it while it was left abandoned by him and the other former owners of the land.
Here are a couple of questions that may help us to break out of the circle into which the conversation has fallen.
1. As it happens, there are a number of people who lived or had businesses on land that was seized by their city government and then turned over to Wal-Mart, who then set up stores and parking lots on it. Are you claiming that the homeowners or business owners victimized by the land seizure have a right to come in 15 years after abandoning the land to the city government, forcibly seize control of the plot on which the Wal-Mart sits, blow up the store and tear up the parking lot, and then take over control of the plot, after more than a decade of continuous operation? I don't think this is true even of cases where the store directly colluded with the city government in order to make the initial theft -- let alone of cases where the new occupant played no role in the theft, and only came along years after the theft had been made.
2. Are you claiming that Horowitz has a just claim to seize the ENTIRE farm, as he did, or only that he has a claim to seize a parcel of it equivalent to his share of the land?
2a. If the latter, what basis could he have for seizing the land that never belonged to him before the seizure, which would not provide just as good a basis for the farmers claiming rightful ownership of ALL the land, including Horowitz's share?
2b. If the former, then which parcel of the land has he got a right to claim? And do you think that there is ANY length of time that Horowitz could have left the land unused, or ANY public actions he could have taken, which would constitute abandonment of the property for the purposes of future homesteaders? If so, how long and what are they?
Published: June 16, 2006 12:55 PM
"As it happens, there are a number of people who lived or had businesses on land that was seized by their city government and then turned over to Wal-Mart, who then set up stores and parking lots on it. Are you claiming that the homeowners or business owners victimized by the land seizure have a right to come in 15 years after abandoning the land to the city government, forcibly seize control of the plot on which the Wal-Mart sits, blow up the store and tear up the parking lot, and then take over control of the plot, after more than a decade of continuous operation? I don't think this is true even of cases where the store directly colluded with the city government in order to make the initial theft -- let alone of cases where the new occupant played no role in the theft, and only came along years after the theft had been made."
Excellent point. I'm going to have think about this one some more.
Published: June 16, 2006 1:00 PM
I didn't want to continue with this, but if you're going to insist on mischaracterizing my position then I will respond.
"You must not give in to destroying property rights in general because you like the farmers, but you don't like Horowitz (nor do I)."
My position is not that we should destroy property rights, but honor them.
Specifically, in regard to:
"You are conveniently ignoring Horowitz's "homestead" here."
No. I'm not because I said to refer to my previous two comments. The particular part that specifically addresses that is this, which *is* the orthodox Rothbardian position as I understand it:
=============
"...by automatically treating state-owned property as unowned, aren't you giving the government the power to negate any existing title merely by claiming it?"
I'm not giving them anything. I'm describing what occurs in the real world -- the state asserts a fraudulent title and backs it up with force.
In ethical terms, such assets are forfeit to the first people capable of being legitimate owners who take them away from the state or otherwise homestead them.
=============
I'm not destroying property rights. My position is that is that the land is the rightful property of the farmers. Anything less than that is a compromise on property rights.
If you want to take issue with the bolded point above, do so. Please refrain from attempting to reframe me as some sort of Bolshevik over a difference in analysis.
Published: June 16, 2006 1:05 PM
It seems to me that Locke and others used the homesteading argument for private property only as a means of explaining how the concept of private property got started and for justifying property ownership in pre-history, when land was abundant and unclaimed by anyone. I believe that Locke argued that once the land had been claimed as property by someone through use or squatting, the homesteading principle would never again be applied because the rules applying to the transfer of property would apply.
So for the homesteaders in this case to be able to claim the property, they would have to show that it had never been claimed by anyone before. Otherwise, someone is the rightful owner of the property regardless of whether the owners uses the land or not. Otherwise, I couldn't invest in a piece of land and let it set unimproved or unused without fear that someone would squat on it and take it away from me.
And if you apply the homesteading rule to land, how about money? If I put money in the bank to draw interest, does the borrower get to take ownership of it because he mixes his labor with it and I don't?
Published: June 16, 2006 1:30 PM
@Roger,
I'm arguing from the Rothbardian position, which is derived from but not identical to Locke's views.
Published: June 16, 2006 1:36 PM
Roger:
"Otherwise, I couldn't invest in a piece of land and let it set unimproved or unused without fear that someone would squat on it and take it away from me"
That's already true. Adverse possession exists in the law today, with respect to real property. With regard to personal property, abandonment is a similar, but not identical, legal concept.
"And if you apply the homesteading rule to land, how about money?"
Adverse possession is a concept with a long historical pedigree in common law - but only with respect to real property. There are a myriad of reasons and justifications for why land is different from goods in this respect, some of which is directly related (in some cases derived from) the Lockeian proviso.
"If I put money in the bank to draw interest, does the borrower get to take ownership of it because he mixes his labor with it and I don't?"
Straw man, as you have a contract with the bank, in addition to the above mentioned distinction between land and goods. Adverse possession requires that the claim to possession be hostile to your claim - in other words, a lease negates any claim to adverse possession.
Published: June 16, 2006 1:41 PM
Quasibill,
I'm not familiar with adverse possessionj. Please elaborate.
I have a problem with considering land a special kind of property with special rules. As John Calvin argued, interest charged on money is not different from rent on land.
Published: June 16, 2006 2:27 PM
Roger_M: Could you please elaborate on what you said about Calvin on rent and interest, e.g. how and where he argued that? The historical treatment of interest is one of particular interest to me. I read about an argument in the Middle Ages that was very similar to what you just said Calvin claimed, but wasn't attributed to Calvin. (It was in Trygve's Economic Calculation in the Socialist Society.
Published: June 16, 2006 2:39 PM
Roger,
Land is, and has been historically treated, different from goods, in that it's supply is truly finite, and existence in space is in fact the one truly universal need for a human being. That doesn't mean anything more than what I said, though. I agree that rents are not an evil, especially with improved land. I'm willing to concede as arguable the position that unimproved land cannot be owned, even though I disfavor it.
As far as adverse possession, it's a common law real property rule that allowed for "squatters" to gain title to land after a certain number of years (generally 21). As I noted, there are other requirements for it to be legally recognized, perhaps the most important being that the squatters' possession of the land was "hostile" to the absentee owner's claim.
Some people claim the underlying principle was one to motivate people to make productive use of land. Other people claim the underlying principle was Lockeian - that you can't just claim good title to all of England just because you landed at the southern tip, you actually have to "use" it in some manner to have valid title to it. Still others will claim it arose from a recognition of the Lockeian proviso or similar - that a person has no right hold more land than he can productively put to use. Regardless of where it came from, it exists, and can be traced fairly far back into the common law.
Again, this is different from goods because goods have, by their very nature, already been separated from the state of nature by someone's labor.
Another example to think of is if I land on the moon, do I now have a good claim to all of it? Or just the crater I landed in? Where is it demarcated? How would someone else know the extent of my claim? How could anyone evaluate the validity of my claim?
Published: June 16, 2006 2:55 PM
Person, I believe I got the story from "The Constructive Revolutionary: John Calvin and His Socio-Economic Impact" by W. Fred Graham. Calvin didn't consider the issue of interest very interesting, so didn't write much about it. Graham said the quote comes from a letter to a newphew, I believe. Calvin considered the prohibitions of usury to apply to loans to the poor. Since the Bible doesn't condemn rent on land, he thought that interest on loans OK. After all, if the owner of cash couldn't loan at interest, he could always buy land and rent it out and achieve the same goal.
Published: June 16, 2006 2:59 PM
Quasibill,
What are the requirements for considering land abandoned? The Nature Conservancy buys land and leaves it unused and unimproved so that it returns to its natural state. Does that give someone the right to squat on it after 21 years?
Published: June 16, 2006 3:28 PM
Roger_M: That's very interesting. In Trygve's book, he claims people argued the same thing: if the church kept them from loaning out money, they would buy land and rent it out, achieving the same purpose. He cites another author who claimed that this is why the German word for interest is "Zins". It comes from the Latin "census", since the term "census" typically was used in the context of a person's land ownership. (You get Zins when you have a large census.) I'll have to check out that book. Thanks.
Published: June 16, 2006 4:39 PM
Person,
That's very interesting, too. I'll definately check out Trygve's Economic Calculation in the Socialist Society.
Published: June 16, 2006 4:59 PM
I'm wondering something: why didn't the celebrities that claimed to be supporting the farmers just buy the land for them? Talk is cheap, sitting in a tree is cheap & dumb, they had the money. The ones that used that land should be furious that their hardship was used for ego-stroking purposes.
Published: June 16, 2006 5:20 PM
anon e mouse,
They have been trying to pay off Horowitz for the land, who initially seemed receptive, but is now refusing to sell, apparently out of spite at the protestors.
(Of course, if the lot belonged to him he'd have a perfect right to refuse to sell to anyone he didn't care to sell to, for any reason that he pleased. But I don't think that the lot does belong to him, and so any money paid to him would morally count only as a ransom, not as a purchase. In which case he not only tried to ransom property that didn't belong to him, but also decided to be petulant about it, too.)
Published: June 16, 2006 11:02 PM
Treating state "owned" property as being actually "unowned" morally *is* the orthodox Rothbardian position as I understand it.
First, "the Rothbardian position" is irrelevant. We're not Randians. A position has no force just because Rothbard proposed it. However, in this case, as usual, Rothbard is right; but you are wrong! Your suggestion that the moment the state steals something it immediately becomes unowned and ripe for homesteading is not at all what Rothbard talked about. What he actually said is that the original owner (that's Horowitz et al., in this case!) should get his property back, but that for most "state owned" property the original owner is not obviously identifiable, and that in that case it's homesteadable.
-- The Ethics of Liberty, ch. 24Published: June 16, 2006 11:46 PM
"However, in this case, as usual, Rothbard is right; but you are wrong!"
Thank you! That's very interesting. I'm more familiar with earlier works that didn't feature that qualifier so explicitly. I gladly admit my mistake.
However...
That still leaves RadGeek's objections, perhaps most notably that Horowitz is not the original owner of the *entirety* of the property in question.
Regarding that particular point, wouldn't that seem objectionable to you? Why or why not?
Published: June 16, 2006 11:57 PM
What are the requirements for considering land abandoned? The Nature Conservancy buys land and leaves it unused and unimproved so that it returns to its natural state. Does that give someone the right to squat on it after 21 years?
No. But if the squatter uses the land for 20 years and the owner hasn't showed up to kick him off in all that time, that's a good indication that the owner doesn't care (i.e., has abandoned) that land. The squatter has to be there for 20 years, not just show up 20 years later. If the Nature Conservancy lets people live on its land for 20 years, without paying rent or in any other way acknowledging the NC's ownership, yes.
Published: June 17, 2006 12:08 AM
Indeed, Horowitz and the others should get their property back. Horowitz only legitimately owns a share of the property (partial ownership of the entire property, not full ownership of a part of the property, to answer a question above). However, that only means that the other owners can legitimately claim their shares back from Horowitz after this sale, if they don't claim from the government today: it doesn't have anything to do with the "sale" to Horowitz, or with the farmers, etc.
Regarding the above question about reclaiming land illegitimately sold to WalMart: yes, the original owners should be able to claim back the land; no, they can't just blow up WalMart's property on that land. They'll have to negotiate with WalMart to decide whether WalMart moves their buildings, pays rent, or whatever they can agree to. The buildings, etc., still belong to WalMart. It makes for an awkward situation, no doubt, but it can still be resolved without violence and/or destruction of anyone's property.
Published: June 17, 2006 1:52 AM
"As it happens, there are a number of people who lived or had businesses on land that was seized by their city government and then turned over to Wal-Mart, who then set up stores and parking lots on it. Are you claiming that the homeowners or business owners victimized by the land seizure have a right to come in 15 years after abandoning the land to the city government, forcibly seize control of the plot on which the Wal-Mart sits, blow up the store and tear up the parking lot, and then take over control of the plot, after more than a decade of continuous operation? I"
I say yes, absolutely. Wal-Mart knew the entire 15 years they were using stolen property. They deserve to lose it, and it morally still belongs to the original owner.
Published: June 17, 2006 7:40 AM
@Peter
"The squatter has to be there for 20 years..."
In terms of legality, that may be the case. I'll take your word, for sake of argument, as to the letter of the law.
In terms of morality, though, what is non-arbitrary about the number 20, as opposed to 10 or 13?
Published: June 17, 2006 2:07 PM
Another important question:
Was the land really "owned", in a moral sense, by the investor groups if it had never been put to any use in the first place?
If the farmers were the first to ever really do anything with that land, then they would surely be the rightful owners in a moral sense -- that is, if it had never actually been homesteaded at all in the first place by Horowitz and associates, regardless of what machinations have occurred with regard to the official title to the plot.
Does anyone know the development status of the land prior to the eminent domain seizure in 1985?
Published: June 17, 2006 2:22 PM
Based on you moral law, can anyone invest in land for its future value? Can someone buy and morally own land with oil or coal reserves though the intent is to wait five or ten years before extracting the minerals? As I understand your discussions, no one could claim such land as their own since they have not worked it. Rothbard does not require land to be worked, else anyone with wooded acres would be subject to squatting claims.
Published: June 17, 2006 2:34 PM
@Jim
The principle is that to credibly assert initial ownership of a given parcel of unowned land, that land has to be transformed in some way and that this is where legitimate ownership originally arises from (homesteading as an extension of self-ownership).
I'll certainly concede that there are plenty of grey areas as to the application of that principle. I'm just asking about the development history (and title history) of the land in question at this point.
Published: June 17, 2006 3:37 PM
@Jim
To clarify:
"...can anyone invest in land for its future value?"
Certainly, provided the investment was purchase from someone who had legit title in the first place. Hence my line of questioning re: development history and title history.
Published: June 17, 2006 3:44 PM
Peter,
I'm not sure I understand your claim about Wal-Mart's use of seized land. If, after negotiations, Wal-Mart refuses to clear off the land, do the homeowners (or whoever) then have a right to evict them by force, knock down the building, etc.? I.e., are you suggesting negotiations merely as a means to avoid disproportionate violence, or are you suggesting that Wal-Mart has some deeper claim not to simply be forced off the land at the pleasure of the people it was seized from?
Paul,
Do you think that occupancy and transformation of the land has no impact on the former possessor's rights to recover it? What if (unlike Wal-Mart, in most cases) the person occupying and using the land is someone who simply came to it long after it had been taken, rather than having colluded with the city government in the process of getting it stolen?
Also, do you think that there is any amount of time that could pass or anything that either the current possessor or the former possessor could do, that would count against the former possessor's right to recover the specific property that she lost (rather than just recovering compensation from the aggressors for the lost property)? E.g. could the homeowners forcibly recover the land 20, 30, 40 years later? From anybody who happened to be on it, if Wal-Mart later closed down and "sold" to someone else? Etc.?
I don't think your position is crazy, but I'm inclined to doubt that it's true, and I'm interested to know what limits, if any, there are on it.
Vince,
Here's something that puzzles me about your position as stated. If Horowitz and the farmers BOTH have a rightful claim to the property, then by what right can Horowitz forcibly exclude them from it (bodily removing them from the land, bulldozing the gardens, etc.)? Horowitz has a right to evict trespassers from his property, but if the farmers have a moral claim to the land then they are not trespassers, and he does not have a right to evict rightful owners from their own property, does he?
Published: June 17, 2006 8:12 PM
In terms of morality, though, what is non-arbitrary about the number 20, as opposed to 10 or 13?
Nothing. That's just the number that was chosen under the common law. Certain socialist types would set the number at 10 minutes or something. That's obviously too short. Perhaps 20 years was about the average productive life span at the time it came about, or something.
Was the land really "owned", in a moral sense, by the investor groups if it had never been put to any use in the first place?
I don't know whether it was legitimately owned by them, but whether they put it to use is completely irrelevant. If someone first homesteaded it 5000 years ago, and it's been sitting idle ever since, simply passing title from one person/group to another, it's still legitimately owned.
If the farmers were the first to ever really do anything with that land, then they would surely be the rightful owners in a moral sense -- that is, if it had never actually been homesteaded at all in the first place by Horowitz and associates
If it had never been homesteaded by Horowitz and co., or by whoever sold it to Horowitz and co., or by whoever sold it to whoever sold it to Horowitz and co., or ... ad infinitum, then I suppose so.
Based on you moral law, can anyone invest in land for its future value? Can someone buy and morally own land with oil or coal reserves though the intent is to wait five or ten years before extracting the minerals?
Of course, yes. But if it's never been properly "homesteaded", then how does that person buy it? Buy from whom? There has to be an existing owner to buy from!
Published: June 17, 2006 8:35 PM
I'm not sure I understand your claim about Wal-Mart's use of seized land. If, after negotiations, Wal-Mart refuses to clear off the land, do the homeowners (or whoever) then have a right to evict them by force, knock down the building, etc.? I.e., are you suggesting negotiations merely as a means to avoid disproportionate violence, or are you suggesting that Wal-Mart has some deeper claim not to simply be forced off the land at the pleasure of the people it was seized from?
Since WalMart committed no criminal act, they have the right not to suffer property damage, etc. I don't know how to handle the hypothetical case where no negotiated resolution is possible (both parties would be in the wrong), but it's not a credible scenario. They'll work something out, because they block each other entirely from any use of the land/buildings, and that serves neither of their interests.
Published: June 17, 2006 8:58 PM
"Since WalMart committed no criminal act..."
What, if any, degree of collusion with the state qualifies as a criminal act in your opinion and why (or why not)?
Published: June 17, 2006 10:30 PM
"Of course, yes. But if it's never been properly "homesteaded", then how does that person buy it? Buy from whom? There has to be an existing owner to buy from!"
That's my point, sir. If land had never been homesteaded, that would mean that there had never been a legit owner to buy it from. Therefore, legit title had potentially never been established by anyone in the first place.
This would not be an uncommon occurrence, especially in the western US, because the state acquired vast tracts of land and several speculators bought the official titles to these lands from the state.
I am asserting that those titles would not be legitimate if those who acquired such fraudulent titles had never done anything later on to actually make the land their own in terms of homesteading.
This doesn't even mean building or tilling would have been necessary. Perhaps the original homesteader, who also presumably acquired official title from the state, merely grazed cattle there.
This could impact my opinion of the SCF case. I will elaborate if it's not clear from what I've already said.
Published: June 17, 2006 10:41 PM
What, if any, degree of collusion with the state qualifies as a criminal act in your opinion and why (or why not)?
Actually carrying out criminal acts, only. If simply "collusion with the state" is sufficient to label one a criminal, we're all criminals if we pay taxes, etc. (I've heard that Osama bin Laden claimed that the WTC was a legitimate target because the people there paid taxes and "colluded with the state". In short: bullshit!). Of course, you can argue that occupying someone else's land at the state's behest is overt criminal behaviour, and it is, but unless WalMart's board are educated libertarians, they won't see it that way, and you can't call every non-libertarian a criminal when they just go along with what they've been taught is right. Lawyers have a saying: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - an act doesn't make a crime unless the mind is guilty.
I am asserting that those titles would not be legitimate if those who acquired such fraudulent titles had never done anything later on to actually make the land their own in terms of homesteading.
Well, I would agree; I just doubt there's very much land where that is the case (I could well be wrong, of course)
Published: June 18, 2006 12:01 AM
Peter:
Do you think that Ralph Horowitz is similarly obliged to work out a negotiated resolution with the urban farmers, rather than simply having them bodily removed from the property and bulldozing their gardens?
Published: June 18, 2006 12:47 AM
Rad Geek, good questions:
What if (unlike Wal-Mart, in most cases) the person occupying and using the land is someone who simply came to it long after it had been taken, rather than having colluded with the city government in the process of getting it stolen?
I think then that that person has been defrauded by the government. Whether he makes a deal with the true owner to assume rightful ownership, or gives the property back, the government owes him serious compensation and damages. There are two parties that need to be compensated in this case, the rightful owner and the innocent receiver of stolen goods.
Also, do you think that there is any amount of time that could pass or anything that either the current possessor or the former possessor could do, that would count against the former possessor's right to recover the specific property that she lost (rather than just recovering compensation from the aggressors for the lost property)? E.g. could the homeowners forcibly recover the land 20, 30, 40 years later? From anybody who happened to be on it, if Wal-Mart later closed down and "sold" to someone else? Etc.?
I can't think of any specific time limit to set for the true owner to reclaim his property, but it's a good question. As long as the claim can be demonstrated, why have any time limit? If the current occupier uses the property in good faith (not having colluded in its theft), then I don't think violent seizure is justified. However, compensation from the thief (the government or Wal-Mart or whoever) can rightfully be taken, by force if necessary. In a free society, there'd be courts willing to hear such a case (but then, there'd be no state to steal your stuff in the first place).
I don't think your position is crazy, but I'm inclined to doubt that it's true, and I'm interested to know what limits, if any, there are on it.
Well, I suppose the main thing is to remember who the initial aggressor was, remember who the rightful owner was and still is, and not to injure an innocent third party.
Published: June 18, 2006 12:49 AM
Do you think that Ralph Horowitz is similarly obliged to work out a negotiated resolution with the urban farmers, rather than simply having them bodily removed from the property and bulldozing their gardens?
He can't damage their property, but simply kicking them off the land doesn't necessitate property damage (of course, if they put up a fight, they become criminal aggressors, and then he can use force to expel them). Bulldozing their gardens: well, they can take their plants away; the issue of where they might take them is irrelevant here; the situation is not the same as if they had fairly permanent erections there (to forestall the inevitable response: I mean buildings, not priapism), like a WalMart store. He can't go knocking down buildings, etc., or he becomes a criminal aggressor, and the farmers can use force against him. [Now, if the farmers read this and hurriedly go put up some shack to forestall Horowitz, then they do so with mens rea, and, ignoring the difficulty of proving it one way or the other, he could knock that down if necessary]
Published: June 18, 2006 1:07 AM